Cuozzo Debate Moves Forward
Over the past week or so, the Petitioner's opening brief and supporting amicus filings have been submitted to the Supreme Court in Cuozzo Speed v. Lee. (Filings linked below). Cuozzo once again tries to draw a distinction between "adjudicative" PTAB trial proceedings and "examinational" proceedings relative to amendment options. The argument being that since the ability to amend is the basis for applying a broadest reasonable claim interpretation (BRI), and as the PTAB is more restrictive than examination based proceedings in this regard, BRI is improperly applied in PTAB trials.
Interestingly, Cuozzo characterizes patent reexamination as an iterative amendment process akin to regular prosecution. Yet, much like the PTAB, reexamination presents one opportunity to substantively amend (before final rejection and eventual appeal) Respondent briefing is due toward the close of March.
Brief for Petitioner Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC
Brief for 3M Company, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Cargill Incorporated, Caterpillar Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Glaxosmithkline LLC, Illinois Tool Works Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Monsanto Company, Pfizer Inc., Philips Electronics North America Corp., the Procter & Gamble Company, Qualcomm Incorporated and Sanofi US in Support of Petitioner
Brief for New York Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Petitioner on the Second Question Presented and in Support of Neither Party on the First Question
Brief for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the Sightsound Technologies, LLC in Support of Petitioner